I kind of get it. But on the other hand, every time you change mediums the way you tell the story changes. Every time a movie comes out based on a book (I mean an all-text novel, not a graphic novel / comic), most people that love the source book *think* that they want the movie to be a 100% verbatim adaptation. But the medium just doesn't work the same way.

Describing a setting or a character might take many paragraphs in a book, possibly spread out over multiple chapters or even multiple books. In a movie, *bam* -- you put it on screen, and you can see it. Done. On the other hand, describing a character's motivations can be done very succinctly or in great depth and detail in a book, but it is harder to do that in a purely visual medium like film.

Wolverine's color scheme and costume design works in comic books. His mask/hat thing with the horn-like points works in the comics. But in live-action film, what materials can look or behave like either or those things, and not be jarringly weird? Even cosplay type stuff is generally built to look good in still images -- not necessarily in video, being subjected to action-movie kinds of physical motion. I believe the directors / filmmakers when they say that they have tried more authentic costumes, and felt that they "didn't work".

Deadpool was a very good example of how it *can* work to move the imagery in a direction visually closer to the comic books. But I think the best we can hope for is a happy medium where *some* visual cues are adapted from the comics, in the situations where those things adapt well to the format.

Donald Norman's book mentioned in the video was a text book I had in college. I especially liked the chapter entitled "The Psychopathology of Everyday Things" (IIRC).

FDR didnt decide that. Truman did. Truman was a weakling. He was like a teenage bully who suddenly got unbelievable power. Even Churchill noticed how much he changed and how he always attacked and tried to provoke Stalin.
And that decision wasnt made because of fear of more lost lives. it was made because after Germany was defeated Russia very quickly advanced towards Japan. Truman didnt want want Russia to get a say in Japan at all costs. Yet they knew Japan was willing to surrender, with only one condition: The emperor would not be touched. The Americans didnt even want to accept that single condition. But the funny thing is, they did after the war. The emperor was not touched. But Truman, in his world, was pretty smart. He not only stopped any possibility of the Russians being able to get a part of Japan, he also showed Stalin what a powerful nation the USA has become, and that it should be feared. In reality, it was 2 atom bombs for NOTHING. Those 2 bombs were a huge factor in the start of the cold war, but ultimately it was Truman and the people behind him, who started that war. He always saw an enemy in Russia. He did everything to ensure they would think the USA is their enemy. Yet memos of Stalin and other documents showed clearly that Stalin never wanted a confrontation with the USA and even after the cold war started, he never took an attack on them into consideration.
Its just another chapter in the aggression and chaos the USA spreads on this planet.

God created the devil, but he wasn't always Gods enemy. The scripture reveals that he was a cherub who covered the mercy seat in Ezekiel 28:11-19..here is an excerpt:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+28&version=NKJV

14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.

15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

A cherub does not look like what is described in the popular imagery. You can find a description of them in Ezekiel chapter 1.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1&version=NKJV

We see in Isaiah 14:3-21 that Satans sin was wanting to replace God and be worshiped himself. Here is an excerpt:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14&version=NKJV
12
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!

13
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;

14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

15
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

In Heaven, Satan had a perfect life but he threw it away in a mad ambition to replace God with himself. This is exactly what he tempts us to do, as we disregard what God wants and sit on the throne of our lives as king. He got what he wanted in a way, as scripture calls Satan the god of this world, his rule over this world, as ours, is only a temporary affair; we will all stand before God on judgment day and give an account.

One of my favourite chapters in may favourite book "The Ancestor's Tale" is about rats, and a quite erie science-fiction scenario with rodents having human level intelligence among their future descendants. They are almost certainly the best mammallian candidate for surviving the (human) apocalypse.

@dannym3141,
tl;dr is always the risk when trying to also provide actual backing to something complicated, I understand the temptation, but by skipping over what I've said you've not understood me.

On the IPCC scenario, I used the RCP4.5 scenario, the one that is most widely quoted by them as their best estimate. It also the estimate they use when comparing model projections to observations, and the observations track well within it's error margins, albeit on the lower end of the RCP4.5 spectrum.
The IPCC says on temperatures by scenario in Chapter 12 of AR5:
global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5). Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081–2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5
My sighting of 1.5C for 'best' from IPCC is derived from classing the 4.5 scenario as their best guess and I disagree with you that I'm materially misrepresenting or understanding them on it.

You also said:
... let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism...
Then later
I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread
I understand the thread is long, if you go back though you'll find I've made numerous references to additional peer-review journal articles backing and corroborating claims from the IPCC to make sure I'm not just cherry picking what might have been a politicized summary or assessment. So forgive, me but when you conclude with :
when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source
You are simply put, flat wrong.

Would you mind weighing in with your own position rather than a simply sitting on the fence calling us both too far on either side? I've been here refuting the notion that the scientific evidence tells us we face catastrophe prior to 2100, and even from some posters claims, catastrophe by 2050. I'm merely taking the stance that the science's best guess as approximated in IPCC RCP4.5, we aren't facing catastrophic collapse worthy of an action movie by 2100. I've said multiple times up thread we are facing problems, it's the severity I claimed by others that I am calling out for not being supported by evidence.

Three things I have to say, @bobknight33:
1. You're complaining about christianity being attacked. Ok, fine, I'll tell you something: I am tired of your religious beliefs invading my life like an middle eastern dictator a small, oily country. Oh, I have it good, I'm a straight, white middle-european man, I'm fine so far. Others are not. They're tired as well.
I can go on a meth-bender, marry one of the Kardashians in Vegas and annul the whole affair in less than a week. If I win the lottery, I can post on Craigslist and get myself a nice gold-digging whore who'll sign a certificate that makes us husband and wife if I'm willing to trade lackluster blowjobs for money. Best part, it ain 't prostitution if you're married, legally worldwide. Heck, I can even become an abusive piece of shit as long as I can beat her well enough so she won't complain to others.
Because marriage is sanctimonious.
If I was gay and would like to marry the guy of my dreams that I've been with for 20 years, that isn't possible. Because the book doesn't approve.
If my sister got raped, you people would force her to birth the child of her rapist. Her concerns don't matter, life is a holy gift from god. Care to explain to me the position of the catholic church (you know, those christians that make up the majority of christianity) on slavery during centuries slavery? How holy was life in all those european colonies back in the day with all these missionaries teaching the good book? What exactly was their statement as an organisation when millions or people were murdered during the third Reich?
All that silence but when it comes to abortion, you people show up with guns and show the value of this great gift by murdering doctors. Fuck my sisters concerns, right? It just rape, walk it off.
I'm well of, I could join the club as a full member anytime. As long as I'm not calling the cops on the pedophile priests and the self-loathing faggots can stand on their pulpits and tell little children they're broken. I could be among you.
But I have a conscience. I can't buy all that talk about love and forgiveness and ignore all that hatred and cruelty that is in the very basis of your beliefs, that wretched, old bible of yours.
I have to look that man in the mirror in the eyes.
The only way you can impose all that crap on me anymore if through the government. I believe your faith has as much place in there than Tom Cruise's. None.
The Prodigy said it best and I think the people who lived at the time the bible was written would agree: Invaders must die.
Your religion invades my rights as a human being.

2. Did he rise?
Nope, little, brown Jewish got killed. End of facts, begin of story. I don't trust the testimony of men (and I said this before) who consider a walkman witchcraft. People at that time could be convinced that they farted because they swallowed an angry spirit that wants to escape.
You book did a terrible job of explaining how the world came to be (we're golems that had so much incest that they inbred mankind), makes up the worst disastermovies (everything turns to Waterworld but we have a boat with a pair of every animal in existence [imagine all those different kinds of ants alone] and then incest till population is back up) and turns mushroomtrips/mental illness in supposedly accurate future predictions (you know it's the end of the world because none of the riders is called "Incest").
The only reason people buy into the mythology and the extended universe (where's that bible chapter about Satan ruling the Sarlac Pit and Santa being canon again? ) is because for centuries children were taught it at a young age. And then you told them not to question it as heretics get the stake. Ashes yes but not the quick Buffy way.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Jesus fellow and I'm willing to believe his basic message but let's be honest. If J.K. Rowling was born 2000 years earlier, we'd pray to Harry Potter and wear lightning shaped jewelery around our neck. You guys got big because the Roman empire made you relevant. That's it.

3. What's up with '53'? Is that the christian answer to '42'?

I am so happy you thought of me and said hello. I was thinking of you, too.

I lost my little doggie, Tess, about two weeks ago, and it really sucked the wind out of my sails. She started breathing funny on Wednesday, and she was dead Thursday night. I had to shoot her, because I couldn't stand to watch her suffer. I'll always second guess myself on that, but she was breathing so hard her tongue was turning blue...as if I could have hugged her back to life.

When I pulled the trigger...I realized in the coldest measure of reality...that a chapter of my life had come to an end.

Twelve years, that little shit followed me through thick and thin and I never thought much about it. I loved her, of course, but...now that she's gone...a part of me has died as well.

I'm a bad Buddhist, I guess...this is all chapter and verse....

On the global field, I feel like we have met, or are approaching, the end of an epoch. Out with the olde, in with the new. Kind of hoping it's not WW-III and all...but I can sense a significant change in the works.

I hope you are well, too, and happy, genuinely happy.

This shot of tequila is for you. May you laugh and smile for no reason at all, soon, and for days on end.

Liked it but I dunno if I'd go that far. The quick time event kills really annoyed me, the bosses were a bit of a missed opportunity (although I hear they fixed them, but I'd already finished it) and the ending (whole last chapter) was a bit so-so. It felt like they were pressured at the end to finish. Hopefully with the foundation already done they will have the time and creative license to create a more refined sequel.

Also, in cases like this video, they were probably getting credit back from the publishers. It's common practice that the items need to be destroyed for them to get back their credit. It's cheaper than shipping all back to the distributors.

I've also worked in a large book store. (Chapters/Indigo Books)
When all mass market books are removed from the shelves, we stripped the book jackets from the books (tore the covers off) and ripped the rest of the books up. we only had to send the covers back to the publishers to get our credit back on them (same with Magazines). We would destroy books by the hundreds, because it was cheaper to destroy them, and have them print more than to ship them back for re-distribution.

A couple of points.
1) several people stated that the truck driver sped up to keep her out. There is no proof of that. There is proof of a decreasing amount of space between the truck and the vehicles ahead of him.

2) The truck in which the video is being shot from appears to be a semi and not a pickup. You can not expect them to speed up or slow down like a passenger car.

3) The vehicles in front of the truck appear to be slowing down due to conditions in front of them, causing the decreased distance between the truck and traffic in front of him.

4) Even though the audio is not that good, there does not appear to be a change in the engine noise to indicate that the truck driver was speeding up to keep her out.

It appears to me that several vehicles in the slow lane saw that there was a semi in front of them that they wanted to avoid. They saw the space in front of the semi in the high speed lane and decided to occupy it. They then passed on the right hand side of the truck.

*warning legal mumbo jumbo*
Straight from the State of Texas Statutes and Legislation web page
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm

Sec. 545.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Pass" or "passing" used in reference to a vehicle means to overtake and proceed past another vehicle moving in the same direction as the passing vehicle or to attempt that maneuver.
------------------------------------

Sec. 545.057. PASSING TO THE RIGHT. (a) An operator may pass to the right of another vehicle only if conditions permit safely passing to the right and:

(1) the vehicle being passed is making or about to make a left turn; and

(2) the operator is:

(A) on a highway having unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles and sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction; or

(B) on a one-way street or on a roadway having traffic restricted to one direction of movement and the roadway is free from obstructions and wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

She was passing on the right by their definition and she did it illegally The truck being passed did not meet the requirements to legally allow passing on the right.

Seeing the video and having read the appropriate law that applies in this situation, It is my opinion that the driver of the passenger vehicle was at fault.

There are people on this website, Enoch for example, or even Dag the owner who will vouch for the fact that I am not a troll. I am a Christian and I've been coming here for several years to comment on things every now and again. I do believe that Jesus Christ is God and that scripture in John regarding belief in the Son is unique to Christianity because John the baptist is talking about Jesus Christ as the unique Son of God..just read the entire chapter.

We can debate what you think the scriptures mean, but the central claim of Christianity is the resurrection. The bible actually says that if the resurrection is not true, Christians are to be pitied above all men. So, the claims of Christianity that Jesus is the Savior of the human race depend upon the resurrection. What do you believe about it?

You'd probably like his new book then. What he says in this video is basically the introduction, and it takes off from there. I'm only through the 3rd chapter, but I dig that some scientists view 'spiritual' experiences as real, worth while, and potentially understandable.